Friday, May 23, 2014

Commonwealth v. Comella case brief summary

Commonwealth v. Comella

1.  FACTS:
Comella was walking two dogs, dropped the leash of one which attacked Salmen’s dog, Comella was cited for having a dangerous dog but argued that “domestic animal” in the statute doesn’t apply to dogs attacks on other dogs & that legislature had changed statute – where it had previously specifically said dogs, it now does not.
2.  ISSUE:
Although not specifically named, is a dog considered a domestic animal under the statutory protections?
There is a common understanding that dogs are among “domestic animals” and to read otherwise would be absurd.
a.  Unlike Massini, the court declined to attribute this to the legislature not withstanding fact that dogs were previously included in the language among the domestic animals but had been deleted.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...